Princeton University has a problem. They have hired Peter Singer to teach in a tenured chair at Princeton's Center for Human Values. The problem? Peter Singer believes that it is OK to kill infants who are born inconveniently disabled.
I've heard about some of his ideas in the past, but I am encouraged that now major newspapers are starting to talk about his ideas and cover the controversy surrounding his appointment to the Center for Human Values. Singer would empower parents with the right to kill their disabled infants up to 28 days after birth.
Let me quote from Singer's book Practical Ethics: "Killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Very often it is not wrong at all." (p. 191).
Here is another quote: "We should certainly put very strict conditions on permissible infanticide, but these conditions might owe more to the effects of infanticide on others than to the intrinsic wrongness of killing an infant." (p. 173).
This is what he says about killing an hemophiliac infant: "The total view makes it necessary to ask whether the death of the hemophiliac infant would lead to the creation of another being who would not otherwise have existed . . . . When the death of a disabled infant will lead to the birth of another infant with better prospects of a happy life, the total amount of happiness will be greater if the disabled infant is killed." (p. 185).
Well, you get the idea. Not only are pro-lifers outraged, but even those who are pro-abortion are upset that he equates aborting a fetus with killing a live, conscious baby. Fortunately there is still some conscience in America so that even pro-life and pro-abortion advocates can agree that the views of Peter Singer are wrong.
I'm Kerby Anderson of Probe Ministries, and that's my opinion.